Friendly forums for passionate Dems!
More than 94 million posts since 2001
Home Latest Greatest Videos Forums Hide ads Join up!
Home Latest Greatest
Videos Forums Help
Hide ads Join up!
Latest Discussions»General Discussion»*****Updated***** I pulle...»Reply #14
Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News Editorials & Other Articles General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

General Discussion

In reply to the discussion: *****Updated***** I pulled up a random document from the release and found proof that the DOJ [View all]

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

Recommendations

1 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

explorer4
30 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies RecommendedHighlight replies with 5 or more recommendations
*****Updated***** I pulled up a random document from the release and found proof that the DOJ [View all] Wiz Imp Friday OP
The coverup continues Blues Heron Friday #1
Well. If this is a transcript of a videotaped deposition, Volaris Friday #2
Good point. Wiz Imp Friday #7
Let the motions and lawsuits to compel compliance begin pat_k Friday #3
It's explicitly stated in the law what can and can't be redacted. Wiz Imp Friday #6
Protecting the criminals. Color me surprised! NOT! BComplex Friday #13
Huh? These restrictions in the law are expicitly to NOT protect the criminals. Wiz Imp Friday #16
Got it! BComplex 21 hrs ago #23
I understand they have to list legal reasons why each and every redaction was made. halobeam Friday #20
Yep. I believe everything you said is correct. Wiz Imp Yesterday #22
They probably will claim that [redacted] os an ongoing investigation Bluetus 8 hrs ago #30
Besides the general hideousness of this (and all the girls, young women violated)... electric_blue68 Friday #4
All redactions by law, were supposed to come with Emile Friday #5
I think that is what is due 15 days from today? halobeam Yesterday #21
And the Trump Administration moved Maxwell to a much cushier prison too. Botany Friday #8
Agreed. And given the specific question about Victoria's Secret lingerie Wiz Imp Friday #9
Les Wexner is the person behind Victoria's Secrets and the brand but he would have no interest in a woman Botany Friday #12
Sorry, but info released in January 2024 confirms it WAS Wexner she was talking about. Wiz Imp Friday #15
That is surprising Botany Friday #18
Wow. Who is questioning her? Demanding, borderline mean. Horrible. Joinfortmill Friday #10
This was in relation to lawsuit against Alan Dershowitz brought by Giuffre's lawyer. Wiz Imp Friday #11
Ah, that explains it. Joinfortmill Friday #14
Working link: Celerity Friday #17
The only way Bondi will release this is when she sees the handcuffs coming for her. mn9driver Friday #19
Guiffre's 2015 testimony against Maxwell in her civil case mentioned in the OP has long been publicly available AZJonnie 15 hrs ago #24
I won't dispute any of the points you make, however you are wrong about one thing. Wiz Imp 14 hrs ago #25
Okay, my bad. I thought your post was in two parts, top and bottom (2015 and 2016 testimonies) AZJonnie 14 hrs ago #26
Like I said. I agree. Especially about Bondi. Wiz Imp 14 hrs ago #28
I don't think she understood that president and prime minister are essentially the same thing. everyonematters 14 hrs ago #27
I think the questioner was trying to trip her up. Wiz Imp 14 hrs ago #29
Latest Discussions»General Discussion»*****Updated***** I pulle...»Reply #14
Home | Latest Discussions | Greatest Discussions | Latest Videos | All Forums

About | Copyright | Privacy | Terms of service | Contact

In Memoriam

© 2001 - 2025 Democratic Underground, LLC. Thank you for visiting.