896
Resurfaced clip shows Epstein pleading the Fifth when asked if he was with Trump around underage girls
(www.independent.co.uk)
this post was submitted on 25 Jul 2025
896 points (99.7% liked)
politics
24944 readers
2506 users here now
Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
- Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.
Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.
Example:
- Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
- Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
- No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
- Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
- No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.
That's all the rules!
Civic Links
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
This is not true!!! unless in the very specific context of a criminal court proceeding. In every other context, refusal to answer a question can be used as evidence against you. For a government job application, divorce/civil proceedings, and any other conversation happening outside of a court, it is fair game to consider non answers as incriminating. In some cases you can even force a defendant to answer questions if they enjoy some kind of immunity, and hold them in contempt otherwise.
It is fair game to consider non answers as incriminating even if those comments occurred in a criminal proceeding. It is OK for an employer to look at court documents and come to a different conclusion than the jury because they are allowed to consider more context. In other words, avoiding criminal liability does not protect you from all forms of justice or consequences for your actions. Citizens absolutely should consider as much context as they can when trying to decide whether to act against their leaders.
https://youtu.be/UbZlYl92OGU?t=249
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nWEpW6KOZDs