• Sun. Aug 3rd, 2025

Xunleihd

If there are any similarities, it's purely for fun.

Trump Dramatically Labels Epstein File Seekers as ‘Professional Pot-Stirrers and Chaos Enthusiasts’

ByXunleihd

Jul 20, 2025

In a plot twist that would make soap opera writers weep with envy, President Donald Trump – fresh from ordering the Justice Department to pretty please release more juicy details about convicted professional creep Jeffrey Epstein – announced Saturday with all the enthusiasm of a wet sandwich that this generous gesture will probably do absolutely zilch to silence his critics who apparently have the audacity to expect government transparency.
Our orange-tinted commander-in-chief took to social media (because where else would one conduct serious governmental business?) to remind everyone that he graciously asked the DOJ “to release all Grand Jury testimony with respect to Jeffrey Epstein, subject only to Court Approval.” However, Trump then proceeded to have what can only be described as a magnificent digital tantrum against the “troublemakers and radical left lunatics” who have been rudely demanding transparency since the Justice Department and FBI dropped their July 6 memo like a hot potato, basically saying “nope, no more files for you!”
“Even if the Court gave its full and unwavering approval, nothing will be good enough for the troublemakers and radical left lunatics making the request. It will always be more, more, more,” Trump declared in his post, presumably while shaking his tiny fist at a cloud shaped like accountability.
In a masterclass of presidential minimization, Trump has been casually brushing off concerns from several people – including prominent Republicans and conservative pundits who apparently forgot they’re supposed to be on the same team – that the government has been about as helpful as a chocolate teapot in getting to the truth behind the sex trafficking charges lobbed at the late financier six years ago. The Justice Department and FBI have confirmed that Epstein took the ultimate exit strategy via suicide in a Manhattan jail on August 10, 2019, because apparently even prison couldn’t contain his commitment to avoiding consequences.
In a delicious twist of historical irony, Trump once enjoyed a friendship with Epstein that was about as wholesome as a candy store run by wolves, socializing in the glamorous playgrounds of New York and Palm Beach. When Epstein got himself arrested in 2019, Trump performed a magical friendship disappearing act, claiming they’d had a “falling out” and hadn’t spoken in 15 years – presumably right around the time when associating with Epstein became about as politically wise as wearing a “Kick Me” sign to a martial arts convention.
Despite his name appearing on Epstein’s private jet flight logs with the frequency of a popular sitcom rerun, our beloved president has never been accused of wrongdoing in connection with the Epstein case – a fact that must provide him great comfort during his 3 AM Twitter sessions.
The DOJ, in their Friday filing that read like a carefully worded apology letter, stated that their request for grand jury testimony follows “extensive public interest” – translation: “The peasants are getting restless and demanding answers.”
The filing announced with bureaucratic pride that the DOJ plans to collaborate with the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Southern District of New York “to make appropriate redactions of victim-related information and other personal identifying information prior to releasing the transcripts” – essentially promising to turn the documents into a legal version of Mad Libs.
“Transparency in this process will not be at the expense of our obligation under the law to protect victims,” the filing added, with all the sincerity of a politician’s campaign promise.
The filing, which bore the signatures of Attorney General Pam Bondi and Deputy Attorney General Todd Blanche (apparently the only two brave souls willing to put their names on this particular document), politely requested the court to “conclude that the Epstein and [Ghislaine] Maxwell cases qualify as a matter of public interest, release the associated grand jury transcripts, and lift any preexisting protective orders.”
Maxwell, Epstein’s partner in their decidedly unsexy trafficking enterprise, was convicted of sex trafficking and other delightfully heinous charges and sentenced to a cool 20 years in the slammer in 2022 – presumably giving her plenty of time to contemplate her life choices and perfect her prison jumpsuit fashion sense.
A former federal prosecutor delivered some delicious reality-checking to ABC News, suggesting that the Justice Department’s grand gesture might yield about as much new information as a fortune cookie written by someone having a particularly uninspired day.
The transcript likely contains “a small fraction of the overall testimony and evidence” gathered against the disgraced financier, former assistant United States attorney Sarah Krissoff told ABC News with the gentle enthusiasm of someone explaining why your lottery ticket is definitely not a winner.
While Trump’s supporters are celebrating his transparency pledge like he just discovered fire, Krissoff delivered a gentle reality check, explaining that grand jury testimony generally provides about as much illumination as a flashlight with dying batteries compared to actual case files or trial evidence.
“The grand jury testimony is going to be very limited compared to the entire case file,” she explained with the patience of a kindergarten teacher. “It’s just going to be a real, high-level review – a highlight reel – of what the prosecutors think is important in the case file, which could be hundreds of thousands, if not millions of documents.”
Considering the mountain of evidence already made public through civil lawsuits and Maxwell’s criminal trial, Krissoff argued that these transcripts are about as likely to change public understanding as a weather report is to control the weather.
“I understand that the president wants to appease some folks by disclosing the grand jury testimony, but I just don’t see that as really shedding a light on much here,” she concluded, presumably while mentally calculating how many different ways she could explain “this probably won’t tell you anything new” to an increasingly frustrated public.

Author: AI
Published: 20 July 2025

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *