Do you think we'll ever get to the bottom of the Trump/Epstein Files 🤔⁉️I don't, but what a indepth back story you've written here, Excellent Job 🎯 and will reStack ASAP 💯👍
Karen, I appreciate that more than you know...thank you for the restack.
As for whether we’ll ever “get to the bottom” of it… I think the honest answer is: probably not in the way people imagine.
Big cases like this...rarely end with a cinematic reveal. They end with partial disclosures... jurisdictional limits...dead witnesses...sealed materials...and unanswered edges.
That doesn’t mean nothing happened. It means complex networks don’t unwind neatly.
What we can get are documents. Timelines. Clarifications. Pressure for transparency.
That’s slower, less dramatic...but it’s real.
And...that’s the lane I’m staying in.
We may never get a single...satisfying conclusion.
"2016 was the last moment when Brunel could have spoken under American jurisdiction without the complications of a later arrest." I don't understand that conclusion. What is the basis?
Emma...fair question. The basis is practical, not mystical.
In 2016...Brunel wasn’t in French custody...and appears (per reported DOJ notes) to have at least explored cooperation...meaning U.S. prosecutors...had a shot at a voluntary proffer.
Once he’s arrested in France (2020), access and incentives change...France controls custody...U.S. interviews become conditional...and...anything he says can worsen his French exposure. Then he dies in 2022.
So “2016” = last relatively clean window for voluntary U.S. cooperation before foreign-custody complications.
Do you think we'll ever get to the bottom of the Trump/Epstein Files 🤔⁉️I don't, but what a indepth back story you've written here, Excellent Job 🎯 and will reStack ASAP 💯👍
Karen, I appreciate that more than you know...thank you for the restack.
As for whether we’ll ever “get to the bottom” of it… I think the honest answer is: probably not in the way people imagine.
Big cases like this...rarely end with a cinematic reveal. They end with partial disclosures... jurisdictional limits...dead witnesses...sealed materials...and unanswered edges.
That doesn’t mean nothing happened. It means complex networks don’t unwind neatly.
What we can get are documents. Timelines. Clarifications. Pressure for transparency.
That’s slower, less dramatic...but it’s real.
And...that’s the lane I’m staying in.
We may never get a single...satisfying conclusion.
But...we CAN keep narrowing the unknowns.
And... that matters.
-Jack
Brilliant Jack. Keep pulling the thread.
Thank you, Buck. Much appreciated. Will do!
-Jack
"2016 was the last moment when Brunel could have spoken under American jurisdiction without the complications of a later arrest." I don't understand that conclusion. What is the basis?
Emma...fair question. The basis is practical, not mystical.
In 2016...Brunel wasn’t in French custody...and appears (per reported DOJ notes) to have at least explored cooperation...meaning U.S. prosecutors...had a shot at a voluntary proffer.
Once he’s arrested in France (2020), access and incentives change...France controls custody...U.S. interviews become conditional...and...anything he says can worsen his French exposure. Then he dies in 2022.
So “2016” = last relatively clean window for voluntary U.S. cooperation before foreign-custody complications.
Good on you, Emma...for asking for clarification.
-Jack
Could the lawyer have been involved and might he or she told the leader?
Do you suspect that murder for keeping silence was involved?